*I agree with David that "according to its (sometimes their) kind" has
reference to the various kinds of a particular basic form, not a reference
to reproduction.*
Interesting. So Gen. 1:21, for example, should read something like *"So
God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing
with which the water teems, of all varieties, and every variety of winged
bird."? *
On 10/11/06, Paul <PHSeely@msn.com> wrote:
>
> ` I repeat my earlier statement:
> All I can say ultimately is that /min/ has been equated with descent so
> often that most people believe the nonsense.
>
> It is amazing the extent to which even scholars absorb the commitments of
> the milieu.
>
> In justification, I ask you to look at the identical usage in Numbers 11
> and Deuteronomy 14, where it applies only to those terms which cover more
> than one entity. In modern usage, we distinguish ravens and crows, with a
> term to cover both of them (and some other smaller black birds), corvids.
> But Spanish has only one term for both, though other European languages
> apparently make a distinction. There is also a matter of curiosity of how
> "after" may be used of the first specimen of a species or genus.
> .
> I would note that my early edition of NIV has a footnote on Genesis 1:1
> that "was" could be understood as "became." This is not in any of the other
> recent translations I have, and does not occur in the Spanish version. I
> take it that NIV is giving a nod in the direction of the old Scofield
> version for those who hold to the gap theory. As far as I could look,
> "became" has no justification in Hebrew.>>
>
> I agree with David that "according to its (sometimes their) kind" has
> reference to the various kinds of a particular basic form, not a reference
> to reproduction.
>
> . In this regard, it is helpful to know that anthropologists have found
> that when it comes to classifying animals, proto-scientific peoples by and
> large begin with three basic life-forms at the top of their taxonomy: FISH,
> BIRD, and SNAKE. After that they may develop WUG (worm + bug) and MAMMAL.
>
> In the OT, beginning with Gen 1:25 (cf. IKg 4:33 [H 5:13]; Ezek 38:21) it
> is evident that the animal taxonomy employed begins with FISH, BIRD, SNAKE
> (remes), and MAMMAL (behemah). In the Flood account FISH are not in view;
> so, the three remaining life-forms are mentioned: BIRD, SNAKE, and MAMMAL
> (Gen 6:7, 20; 7:8,14; 8:17, 19).
>
> The question of the meaning of mīn relates directly to these four basic
> life-forms since the OT specifically speaks of every FISH "according to
> their kind" (Gen 1:21), every BIRD "according to its kind" (Gen 1:21) every
> SNAKE "according to its kind" (Gen 1:25) and MAMMAL "according to its kind"
> (Gen 1:25).
>
> In statements beginning with a lower taxonomic category, the the meaning
> is the same: "various kinds of" that lower category.
>
> However, Dave, you will have to keep looking on "was" meaning "become". It
> can mean "become" without the following lamedh, but his is very rare. (don't
> ask me for the references, but they are in my file somewhere.)
>
> Paul S.
>
>
>
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Oct 11 18:43:47 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Oct 11 2006 - 18:43:47 EDT